The Evolution of Entrepreneurs and Venture Capitalists

  • Martin SewellEmail author


We have evolved “as if” reproduction is the sole goal for which human beings were “designed,” and everything else is a means to that end. However, natural selection is a slow process, and Homo sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago, so our minds today are adapted to maximize gene replication in the Pleistocene. Meanwhile, an investor seeking to maximize wealth, Homo economicus, should behave according to expected utility theory. Aspects of the behavior of Homo sapiens that differ from Homo economicus include the endowment effect, loss aversion, risk aversion, overconfidence, optimism, the representativeness heuristic, the availability heuristic and herding. This chapter speculates how these heuristics and biases may have evolved, and focuses on their effect on entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.


Risk Aversion Venture Capitalist Cognitive Bias Risk Preference Prospect Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Atmar, W. 1991. On the role of males. Animal Behaviour 41: 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber, B.M., and T. Odean. 2001. Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberis, N., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. 1998. A model of investor sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics 49: 307–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo, A.E., and I. Welch. 2001. On the evolution of overconfidence and entrepreneurs. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 10: 301–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernoulli, D. 1738. Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. Co-mentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 5: 175–192.Google Scholar
  6. Bernoulli, D. 1954. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22: 23–36. English translation of Bernoulli (1738) by Sommer L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, M.H. 2008. New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review 115: 463–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosma, N., Z.J. Acs, E. Autio, A. Coduras, J. Levie. 2009. Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2008 executive report.Google Scholar
  9. Breiman, L. 1961. Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. In Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol. I, ed. J. Neyman, 65–78. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brocas, I., and J.D. Carrillo. 2004. Entrepreneurial boldness and excessive investment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 13: 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brush, C., N. Carter, E. Gatewood, P. Greene, and M. Hart 2004. Gatekeepers of venture growth: A Diana Project report on the role and participation of women in the venture capital industry. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City.Google Scholar
  12. Busenitz, L.W., and J.B. Barney. 1997. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing 12: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buss, D. 2008. Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind, 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Cassar, G. 2010. Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? An empirical test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations. Strategic Management Journal 31: 822–840.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, D.J., and K.J. Saral. 2010. Entrepreneurship and team participation: An experimental study. Working paper. Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, A.C., C.Y. Woo, and W.C. Dunkelberg. 1988. Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing 3: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cosmides, L. 1989. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31: 187–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cosmides, L., and J. Tooby. 1996. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58: 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Finetti, B. 1937. La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 7: 1–68. Translated into English as Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources. In Studies in Subjective Probability, eds. H.E. Kyburg Jr, and H.E. Smokler, pp. 93–158. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  20. Dunbar, R. 1996. Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  21. Gal, D. 2006. A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision Making 1: 23–32.Google Scholar
  22. Gigerenzer, G., and U. Hoffrage. 1995. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review l02: 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gintis, H. 2007. The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 64: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffin, D., and A. Tversky. 1992. The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology 24: 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison, G.W., and E.E. Rutström. 2009. Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics 12: 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartog, J., J. van der Sluis, and M. van Praag. 2007. Returns to intelligence: Entrepreneurs versus employees. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Haselton, M.G., and D. Nettle. 2006. The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Headd, B. 2003. Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Business Economics 21: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly Jr., J.L. 1956. A new interpretation of information rate. The Bell System Technical Journal 35: 917–926.Google Scholar
  31. Kemeny, J.G. 1955. Fair bets and inductive probabilities. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lehman, R.S. 1955. On confirmation and rational betting. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, J. 2002. When bureaucrats meet entrepreneurs: The design of effective ‘public venture capital’ programmes. The Economic Journal 112: F73–F84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Logan, J. 2009. Dyslexic entrepreneurs: The incidence; their coping strategies and their business skills. Dyslexia 15: 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacLean, L.C., W.T. Ziemba, and G. Blazenko. 1992. Growth versus security in dynamic investment analysis. Management Science 38: 1562–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonnell, P. 2008. Optimal portfolio modeling: Models to maximize returns and control risk in Excel and R + CD (Wiley Trading). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Moxon, S. 2008. The woman racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, G. 2001. The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: Vintage. Originally published: 2000, London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  39. Ramsey, F.P. 1926. Truth and probability. In The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays, Chapter VII, ed. R.B. Braithwaite, 156–198. London: Kegan, Trench, Trübner, 1931.Google Scholar
  40. Sahakian, B., A. Lawrence, L. Clark, J.N. Labuzetta, B. Sahakian, and S. Vyakarnum. 2008. The innovative brain. Nature 456: 168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sewell, M. 2008. Gender (sic) equality (sic). Opticon1826, 4.Google Scholar
  42. Shimony, A. 1955. Coherence and the axioms of confirmation. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sinn, H.-W., and A.J. Weichenrieder. 1993. The biological selection of risk preferences. In Risk is a construct: Perceptions of risk perception, ed. B. Rückversicherung, 67–83. Munich: Knesebeck.Google Scholar
  44. Thaler, R. 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1: 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. The Economist. 2009. A special report on entrepreneurship, 12 March 2009.Google Scholar
  46. Tiger, L. 1995. Optimism: The biology of hope. New York: Kodansha. Originally published: 1979, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5: 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zacharakis, A.L., and D.A. Shepherd. 2001. The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists’ decision making. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations